In any case, the issue isn't the statistical probability of how my gun is used, but my freedom to make the choice to own it. Saying that I can't own something because I'd probably just hurt myself with it is pretty condescending.

I'm not disputing whether you should be allowed to own a gun or not. That's up to your government to decide.

No, I'm pointing out that the argument that gun possession leads to a safer home is demonstratively falicious. At best, it provides a false sense of security.

Now, if that is what you need in order to feel safe, I'm not surprised. I've watched the 6 o'clock news on American TV, I've seen how it promotes the culture of fear.

...But, it remains that the statistics are the statistics.

And, really, why is the media focusing on assault rifles only right now? Why not handguns too?

And, really, why is the media focusing on assault rifles only right now? Why not handguns too?

Because handguns are Constitutionally protected, and they don't have big scary "military features" to be legislated against. We've been through this already, but rifles are used in only a tiny fraction of all murders in the U.S., but their appearance makes them an easy target for people who want meaningless, feel-good legislation.

I'd honestly have more respect for the anti-gun crowd if they actually proposed things to keep handguns out of the hands of madmen. But it's easier for them to tell rifle owners what type of stock they can use or what shape of grip they can have... as though that makes them more deadly.

12ax7 wrote:

Your government has the right to determine which kind of "arms" you can possess. Black powder muskets only? Why not?

The government (the Supreme Court in particular) has already determined that rifles and handguns fit into the category of "arms' under the Constitution. And since you generally don't just flip decisions because the bench changes, it would require a Constitutional amendment to do that. And since there's nowhere near enough public support for that, we're keeping the handguns and rifles.

And since handguns have very few features to ban, the emotional "we have to do something" crowd focuses on useful features of rifles that have no impact on their lethality.

And, really, why is the media focusing on assault rifles only right now? Why not handguns too?

Because handguns are Constitutionally protected, and they don't have big scary "military features" to be legislated against. We've been through this already, but rifles are used in only a tiny fraction of all murders in the U.S., but their appearance makes them an easy target for people who want meaningless, feel-good legislation.

I'd honestly have more respect for the anti-gun crowd if they actually proposed things to keep handguns out of the hands of madmen. But it's easier for them to tell rifle owners what type of stock they can use or what shape of grip they can have... as though that makes them more deadly.

12ax7 wrote:

Your government has the right to determine which kind of "arms" you can possess. Black powder muskets only? Why not?

The government (the Supreme Court in particular) has already determined that rifles and handguns fit into the category of "arms' under the Constitution. And since you generally don't just flip decisions because the bench changes, it would require a Constitutional amendment to do that. And since there's nowhere near enough public support for that, we're keeping the handguns and rifles.

And since handguns have very few features to ban, the emotional "we have to do something" crowd focuses on useful features of rifles that have no impact on their lethality.

In other words, American society is dysfunctional by design. How convenient for gun manufacturers and the prison industrial complex.

Sorry, it's our constitutional right and we are not giving it up. Too bad. *sticks tongue out at you*

Your government has the right to determine which kind of "arms" you can possess. Black powder muskets only? Why not?

You come off like someone that foolishly believes that utopian delusion that if guns would just “go away,” crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place. Not an insult, just an observation. I like you 12xa7, so don't take that the wrong way. In one of your past lives, you were probably advocating the banning of all swords, battle axes, etc. and the disbanding of the Templars. jking.

Your government has the right to determine which kind of "arms" you can possess. Black powder muskets only? Why not?

Like I said, Henry rifles and Colt revolvers.

The gun advocates say that the assault weapons bans are purely cosmetic and that a 1903 Springfield in the right hands is just as lethal as a .223 civilian rifle.

Let's take them at their word.

Springfields, Henrys, Winchesters, etc. Gun advocates have their capable guns. Modern hand guns and rifles are banned. The Framers right to weapons that they would have reasonably foreseen is protected. You can hunt, defend your home, and "resist" the government with those in a capable manner- 100 million people with Henry rifles/Mosin-Nagants/Garands would be approximately effective as 100 million people with Mini-14s/AR-15 knockoffs (until the drone blows you up from over the horizon). Sorry, but if you think the margin of victory vs. the government is the difference between a Henry & an AR-15, you're an idiot. Everyone wins- assault weapons are banned, and as good as a deterrent as you're going to get, govt/personal is allowed..

I would feel perfectly fine relying on a Henry/Winchester and a Colt revolver to protect myself and hunt with. Let's leave it at those.

Grew up with guns, hunted, all that stuff. I see asolutely no reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle. I have noticed that many make up for other shortcomings with their gun. t

They laughed at Biden when he said to get a shotgun for home defense, but the captain of the ARmy pistol team said the same thing. A shotgun less range so no danger of killing the neighbor accross the street and you have a much much better chance of hitting what you are pointing at.

314 million people and many immigrants from very very violent places, the mrder rate seems to be dropping even though their are more guns than ever.